• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Montana Sovereinty Bills have national scope

JBinMontana

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
260
Location
Kalispell, Montana, USA
imported post

Montana sovereignty bills have national scope

By KAHRIN DEINES
Associated Press Writer
News Link

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states' rights across the nation.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," Democrat Schweitzer said.

Since the law applies only to those guns that are made and kept in Montana, its impact is limited. The state is home to just a handful of specialty gun makers, known for recreating rifles used to settle the West, and most of their customers are out-of-state.

But supporters of the new law hope it triggers a court case testing the legal basis for federal rules governing gun sales.

"What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana's business and affairs," bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, a Republican and wilderness guide from Livingston, told fellow lawmakers during the bill's House debate.

The measure is one of many introduced by state lawmakers across the nation seeking to confront what some see as a federal overreach into state matters that will be extended with the national stimulus plan.

Along with the gun bill, Montana legislators are considering a resolution that affirms the 10th Amendment principle that the federal government only has those powers that are specifically given to it by the U.S. Constitution.

"The whole goal is to awaken the people so that we can return to a properly grounded republic," Rep. Michael More, R-Gallatin Gateway and the Montana resolution's sponsor, said at a House committee hearing Wednesday.

As many as fifteen other Legislatures have also been mulling resolutions that buck federal control in states such as New Hampshire, South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma.

"The balance has swung far to the extreme to the empowerment of the federal government, and to the harm of the individual states," More said.

Opponents of the state sovereignty bids, however, warn they could give legitimacy to the kind of anti-government ideas that fueled the militia movement in Montana and elsewhere.

"When you really actually get in and look at it there is a lot of what we feel is very dangerous, very anti-government language that reads very similar to posters for the militia movement in the 1990s," said Travis McAdam, the interim director of the Montana Human Rights Network, a group formed to oppose racism and extremism.

One of the few state Senators who voted against the gun bill - Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena - is that group's director when the Legislature is not in session. She ties the bills' proliferation to fears about the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama and stimulus spending.

"I do think that there is a kind of renewed vehemence to this kind of right-wing rhetoric being spewed by conservative talk show hosts to rile the troops and they are using the fact that we have a Democratic, black president as one of their rallying calls," Kaufmann said.

The Montana bills are being sponsored by freshman legislators who ran as part of a broader effort to oust more moderate Republicans in last spring's elections.

House Resolution 3, the one sponsored by More, follows another states' rights declaration that deadlocked in the same committee earlier this session, although the committee's chairman said it may have a shot on its second try.

House Bill 246, the Montana-made gun bill, cleared the Legislature easily before reaching the governor's desk.

Its supporters next plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF says it's illegal, the gun bill's backers plan to file a lawsuit in federal court with the goal of launching a legal showdown that lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the bill, has said it will raise the money to pay for any legal costs.

"It doesn't cost us any money and I like guns," Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

"I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that's made in Montana," Schweitzer said.
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

MT GUNNY wrote:
This is good, However Id like to know if he signed HB228?
JBinMontana wrote: (emphasis mine)
<snip>
HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states' rights across the nation.
<snip>
That'd be a yes.

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

The Federal octopus has it's tentacles in stuff never intended. 'Bout time the 10A was stuffed in it's eye. This is still a Republic... Now 'n then those DC goons need reminding of that.
 

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
imported post

Pagan wrote:
 Sounds like you guys have a governor with some patriotic balls! Three cheers!!

Yes and he's a Democrat no less!

If I lived in Montana I would re-elect him!!!

He did sign HB 228 into law,
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

These bills are nothing more than complete wastes of political capital with no effect whatsoever. The ATFE and the FBI do not recognize these laws. All this will do is give a false sense of security to some gun owners, who think that somehow this law will protect them, and that somehow the state government will become their defense lawyer when they make a machinegun in their garage and the feds find out about it. I don't see the Montana or other AG's acting as defense lawyers. They will be hung out to dry as examples for everyone to see.

The real way of dealing with this problem is through the court system. After we get some rulings from SCOTUS about the Second Amendment, I can see the strong possibility of a challenge to the Hughes Amendment after we get full carry rights out of them (the Sykes case out of California *could* make it to SCOTUS defending on how badly the other side wants to fight, also there are other states with similar problems to California we can go after).

The right way to do this is through litigation, not through grandstanding BS state laws that are merely morsels of uselessness that state politicians throw gun owners way just to make us think that they "did something" for gun owners. These bills are worse than nothing.
 

JBinMontana

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
260
Location
Kalispell, Montana, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
These bills are nothing more than complete wastes of political capital with no effect whatsoever. The ATFE and the FBI do not recognize these laws. All this will do is give a false sense of security to some gun owners, who think that somehow this law will protect them, and that somehow the state government will become their defense lawyer when they make a machinegun in their garage and the feds find out about it. I don't see the Montana or other AG's acting as defense lawyers. They will be hung out to dry as examples for everyone to see.

The real way of dealing with this problem is through the court system. After we get some rulings from SCOTUS about the Second Amendment, I can see the strong possibility of a challenge to the Hughes Amendment after we get full carry rights out of them (the Sykes case out of California *could* make it to SCOTUS defending on how badly the other side wants to fight, also there are other states with similar problems to California we can go after).

The right way to do this is through litigation, not through grandstanding BS state laws that are merely morsels of uselessness that state politicians throw gun owners way just to make us think that they "did something" for gun owners. These bills are worse than nothing.

Since you don't live here in Montana it sure seems you think, I use the word lightly think that you know it all.

Montana is well versed with telling the federal goverment where to get off... think back when all the other states were going to just bow to the REAL ID ACT. Yep, your own state included. Montana told them where to get off and won, still holding ground too. Don't tell us what you think you may know.... yep I know its tough living in a state that just lets the federal government run all over you.

Sorry take your soap box some place else. :celebrate
 

40s-and-wfan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
490
Location
Lake County, Montana, USA
imported post

Also, keep in mind Mr. Washington State, HB 246 states that you cannot make a firearm that will shoot two or more bullets with each activation of the trigger or the firing mechanism. READ THE LAW. It's pretty self-explanatory. Montana has succeeded before with laws along these lines and has thought this one through very thoroughly before passing it.
The solution for you is simple, if you don't like it, don't read about it, comment on it or travel to this state!! We'd appreciate it if you'd keep your negative comments on your own side of Idaho and we'll keep ours about your state on our side!!
 

40s-and-wfan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
490
Location
Lake County, Montana, USA
imported post

It has recently come to the attention of many politicians, legislators, and political aficionados that other states are wanting to follow suit and pass laws of a similar nature. Texas for one, is looking to start a law in their state legislature that is similar in nature to Montana's House Bill 246. Some people need to realize that in all honesty and Constitutional Judgement, the Federal Government has not authority taxing, regulating or restricting the manufacture, sale or distribution of several products (such as firearms) if they don't cross state lines. Since they don't fall under the jurisdiction of 'Interstate Commerce' the Feds don't have a leg to stand on!!
It's quite simple in that regard.
Now Mr. Peterson, if you're content in allowing the federal government to regulate things they have no business being in the middle of, that's quite fine with me! Since I don't live in Washington and have no intention of moving their, your state laws have no effect on me!! Just keep in mind, if I were insulting how ridiculous your state is regarding some matters I'm sure you would get pretty offensive too! Don't come into the thread of a state other than your own, and insult the way they do things and don't come in here and tell us that our state doesn't know what it's doing!! Many of us well-educated individuals encouraged our Legislators to vote in favor of HB's 228 and 246 because we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is what is best for us and what is needed to prove to the Feds' that we're not going to sit idlly by while they try to usurp their power in our own backyard!!
To insult this law is also an insult to us as individuals! I'll thank you to leave your comments to yourself and keep your insults to a minimum. With all due respect, I don't require a title of 'State Researcher' under my username to know what I'm talking about. Even so, it would be best if some things weren't flaunted.
Thank you for your time and for your comments, as unwanted as they may be!!
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

I don't live in Montana... but I'm REAL aware of the 10A and endemic abrogation of State authorityto continued encroachment of the Feds beyond Constitutional limits. The STATES are to be served by the Federal Government, not controlled by it. This is a Republic. Too many have come to view this nation as a sort of Federal monarchy. (We fought a revolution against that if you'll recall.) The Feds extend their power thru dangling monetary carrots. You take the carrot... they call the tune. The 'mob' does this. It's time the Federal octopus is put back in it's box. Facismis not what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution.
 

40s-and-wfan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
490
Location
Lake County, Montana, USA
imported post

Sounds to me like everyone understands the significance and the importance of bills like HB's 228 and 246, everyone that is except Mr. Peterson. It is important for each and every state to let the Federal Government know just how far their authority can and should go, some states (like Montana and others) are just more willing to voice that limitation. I don't know what Washington's stance on the matter is, but I can say that I wouldn't be willing to sit idly by and let my state usurp it's own authority, or let the Fed's do the same for theirs.
Some are willing to sit by, others are willing to do something about it. I think Montana has shown that it's people are willing to stand up and speak for themselves. I think some people feel it necessary to insult our laws and our way of life as a form of 'lashing out' because theyre jealous that their state isn't doing something like this as well!!
DON'T HATE, APPRECIATE!!
 

Chez

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
69
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

40s-and-wfan wrote:
DON'T HATE, APPRECIATE!!

I'm another Arizonian that certianly appreciates your state. You guys ROCK!

We need more states with the balls to tell the Feds enough already, stop trying to control everything. What is crazy is liberals always say they are for personal freedoms, yet they want to control everything you do, eat, drink or smoke. Just leave us alone!
 

40s-and-wfan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
490
Location
Lake County, Montana, USA
imported post

I agree. Check out our Illustrious President's recent comments about finding a replacement to fill the soon-to-be-vacant seat in the Supreme Court. He said he wants to find someone to fill the seat that shares his Constitutional Views and opinions... I think we know where his views and opinions are and where he stands!!
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
These bills are nothing more than complete wastes of political capital with no effect whatsoever. The ATFE and the FBI do not recognize these laws. All this will do is give a false sense of security to some gun owners, who think that somehow this law will protect them, and that somehow the state government will become their defense lawyer when they make a machinegun in their garage and the feds find out about it. I don't see the Montana or other AG's acting as defense lawyers. They will be hung out to dry as examples for everyone to see.

The real way of dealing with this problem is through the court system. After we get some rulings from SCOTUS about the Second Amendment, I can see the strong possibility of a challenge to the Hughes Amendment after we get full carry rights out of them (the Sykes case out of California *could* make it to SCOTUS defending on how badly the other side wants to fight, also there are other states with similar problems to California we can go after).

The right way to do this is through litigation, not through grandstanding BS state laws that are merely morsels of uselessness that state politicians throw gun owners way just to make us think that they "did something" for gun owners. These bills are worse than nothing.
Come on Gray, you can't be that ignorant. The law was specifically crafted to provide a narrow test case for the federal courts. It defines limits for what is not interstate commerce. Automatic weapons are specifically not covered. This law was crafted specifically to deliver 10th A winning litigation.

The real question is whether the BATFE is stupid enough to take the bait. Does anybody think that a jury in Montana would convict somebody of a violation of interstate commerce for making or buying a Montana gun in Montana?
 
Top